BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the relief that the suit be decreed along with interest as prayed for in the plaint in terms of alleged admissions made by the defendants in their written statement/counter claim filed by them.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 36,73,922. 23 against the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant No. 1 and its partners, defendant Nos 2 and 3, approached the plaintiff and offered to sell Soft Ferrites which were being manufactured by the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff s case that the plaintiff and the defendants had a principle-to- principle relationship inasmuch as the defendants and, in particular, defendant no. 1 was the stockist for the plaintiff for the Delhi area. The plaintiff s allegation is that the goods were supplied in terms of their past practice on a principle-to-principle basis and invoices were raised from time to time. There was no difficulty with this arrangement till the year 1996 when, according to the plaintiff, despite supply of goods by the plaintiff to the defendants, the defendants have not paid for the same and that is why a sum of Rs. 36,73,922. 23 which includes an amount of Rs. 23,85,497. 95 by way of principal. The balance amount is on account of interest.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the defendants have not denied the supply of the items and, therefore, they are entitled to the price along with interest. And, it is on the basis of this that they are seeking judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6.

( 4 ) MR Sood, the learned counsel for the defendants, submitted that the defendants have not only filed a written statement denying the liability to pay any amount claimed by the plaintiff but they have also filed a counter claim for an amount of Rs. 28,98,641. 00 against the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that upon going through the entire written statement-cum-counter claim filed by the defendants, it would become apparent that the defendants have nowhere denied its liability towards the plaintiff and, therefore, dehors the question of the counter claim of the defendant, the plaintiff s suit can be decreed in terms of Order 12 Rule 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decisions of this court reported in :- 1) Delhi Jal Board v Surendra P Malik 2003 III AD (Delhi) 419; 2) Uttam Chand v Ramkishan 1989 RLR 257. The latter case has been cited for the proposition that a counter claim constitutes a separate cause of action and, therefore, the same could be dealt with separately. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that insofar as the plaintiff s claim is concerned that can be separated from the counter claim of the defendants and if there are admissions which entitle the plaintiff to a decree insofar as his claim is concerned then there is no impediment to the court passing an order on the plaintiff s claim under Order 12 rule 6 while keeping the counter claim of the defendants alive for adjudication at a subsequent stage after evidence is led in the matter. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, referring to the decision in Delhi Jal Board (supra), submitted that the test specified in paragraph 9 thereof with regard to an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands fully satisfied in the present case. Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid decision i. e. , Delhi Jal Board (supra) reads as under:"9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defence set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document